September 10, 2007 by Jeff Jarvis
I’ve been getting slimed with lots of spam from sites at Clickbank.net. They do provide a page for making complaints, which clearly means that they know they are being used for spam. The response to my complaint was unsatisfying; they wanted to read the spam comments (which, clearly, I kill as soon as they pop up like the bits of barf that they are). I hate spammers. I hate Clickbank. I urge you all to search your comments for “clickbank”, copy them and send them to Clickbank, and then kill them. Anyone who enables spammers is a spammer.
September 12, 2006 by Jeff Jarvis
Steve Rubel takes a list of the top 100 advertisers and then sees where Wikipedia articles about them come up in Google search results. Not surprisingly — once you think about it — these open articles come up high, in many cases in the first page of Google results. That is to say that these advertisers, who spend billions on their brands, are subject to the open judgments of the public. Of course, they have always been subject to the views of their customers — what is a brand but that? — only the internet and Wikipedia allow them to come together and share those views without commercial filters.
Steve cautions companies to be aware of what these articles say but not to try to manipulate them. Amen.
Someone just told me about a company that was planning to write a Wikipedia article about its ad slogan. I won’t say which company in hopes that they listened to the friendly and firm advice I gave to the person who told me about this: It is evil and stupid.
Life is spam.
: By the way, I note that my tag page for Dell comes up 11th on the Google search, on the second page. I’m glad it’s the tag page, versus just one post, for it includes the more positive things I have said about Dell lately; it is a fuller and more balanced view. This is a benefit of tag pages ending up as permalinks for topics. More tag magic.
August 27, 2006 by Jeff Jarvis
Jonathan Zittrain and Laura Frieder studied stock spammers and found — God help us — that they make money at it.
People who respond to the “pump and dump” scam can lose 8% of their investment in two days.
Conversely, the spammers who buy low-priced stock before sending the e-mails, typically see a return of between 4.9% and 6% when they sell.
As long as there are poor schlubs who listen to stock tips from the digital equivalents of gangsters, we are doomed to spam forever.
March 24, 2006 by Jeff Jarvis
Well, they have balls: I see on a spam blog an advertisement for software to create spam blogs. If you link to it, please link under the word slime.
February 9, 2006 by Jeff Jarvis
I have an alternate view of the AOL email stamp hooha. It’s not about money. It’s about identity. How about this:
I don’t want to get email from anyone who does not have a verifiable identity. And I want the means to block email from any identity. If someone abuses that identity, then we can all share it and block them at will. Then they can lose their identity.
And identity is the real precious commodity, not .25 cents per worthless email or .25 cents for the valuable email I don’t get.